RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity?

RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

njlauren -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/1/2013 9:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 This makes no sense whatsoever. 'No it isn't' followed by confirming what I just said. You said, "The 'firebrand Christ' bio is hardly new or exclusive to Muslim authors," and she said, "No, it isn't," agreeing with you. You also said, "speculative history sells," and I agree with you there. But that doesn't change the fact that "speculative history" is an oxymoron, and the argument in this case is bunk. As presented by njlauren, it goes like this: Premise: The Messiah was a military leader. Premise: Jesus believed he was the Messiah. Conclusion: Jesus would have been engaged in militant activism. However, following the same form: Premise: The Messiah was not divine. Premise: Jesus believed he was the Messiah. Conclusion: Jesus would not have claimed to be imbued with the divine. Accordingly, to argue on this basis that his militant activism was "purged" from the texts requires us also to argue that his claims to divinity were added after the fact. And while that's all good fun, unfortunately for "speculative history" neither of these conclusions finds any support in the Qumran and Nag Hammadi scrolls. Finally, before a certain individual rushes in salivating and swinging his flail, let me be clear that my only intent here is to counter a speculative argument, not to defend Christianity. Some further reading, if interested. K. What Jesus divinity was is hard to ascertain, and the prime idea of his divinity, that he was the trinity, was completely after the fact, that sprang up in the decades after Christ died and became the vision of Christ of the nascent church in 325CE at Nicea. Christ said he was the son of God, but you have to be careful about that one,and it is a tantalizing clue.....according to Jewish tradition, their kings were the sons of God, David was considered to be the Son of God in Jewish tradition, as were other kings..so if Christ said he was the son of God, was he referring to really being the son of God, or the Jewish concept of it? Again, the NT is a tricky document, among other things, the earliest texts were not written for gentiles, they were Jews writing for fellow Jews trying to convert them to the new faith, and it has to be read in context. To be honest, I would not claim I know who Christ was, what I am saying is that what has been told about him in the religion, in the bible, is not a complete picture, the bible is not a book of history as such (it contains history); I think that if the book is portraying him as an out and out zealot out to drive out the Romans, it is probably wrong, but I also doubt very much that Christ was this beatific, perfect being the NT and church made him out to be, for he was a radical, there is no doubt about it, he wasn't out to overthrow Jewish teaching (in effect, the Christian church very well could be wrong, that Christ never intended there to be a new faith but rather reforming Judaism) but he was out to overturn the very foundations of Judaism of his time. The temple based Judaism was an ensconced power structure with this idea of purity that few could match, and if you couldn't get into the temple, weren't good enough, you didn't talk to God. Christ completely upset that, he said God is for everyone, that the temple authorities were blasphemers and hypocrites, and in that sense, he was definitely not pacifistic per se.

njlauren -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/1/2013 9:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple FR The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans. It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject, the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded ignorance of the worst kind. As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran. So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry.

njlauren -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/1/2013 9:57:27 PM)
deleted

Kirata -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 12:52:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Pilate killed Jesus, the whole crap about the Jewish authorities doing it is complete and utter bullshit... They didn't go after Christ because a bunch of Rabbis squawked he was unholy and a sorcerer, they went after Christ because he was attracting a large following and posed a political threat in a country that was seething with rebellion It's nice that you feel so sure of yourself that you can rattle off these claims, but your post offers no support for them. And it would have taken you only a moment on Wikipedia to discover that the Gospel narratives of him being condemned by the Sanhedrin have independent support in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross... Additionally there is this reference in the Talmud: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover While the Wiki entry notes that there has at times been debate over the identity of this Yeshu... many historians agree that the above passage is likely to be about Jesus, Peter Schäfer stating that there can be no doubt that this narrative of the execution in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Robert Van Voorst states that the Sanhedrin 43a reference to Jesus can be confirmed not only from the reference itself, but from the context that surrounds it. Jesus was much more an offense and threat to the Sanhedrin that he ever was to Rome, and his popularity would have made any attempt to have him stoned to death, which the Sanhedrin could have done, highly problematic. Having grounds for getting Rome involved offered a convenient alternative. But there was no evidence, and there is no evidence now, that he was ever a militant who agitated for insurrection, and no evidence that Pilate particularly wanted him dead. There is, however, evidence is the contrary. Crucifixion is a very slow death, and in accord with the Gospel narrative Pilate would never for a moment have believed Jesus was dead after only 6 hours on the cross. But nevertheless, afforded an excuse, he agreed to allow him to be taken down even though the centurion's testimony might be easily explained by Jesus having passed out. So there is nothing to indicate that his crucifixion by Rome would ever have come to pass without the instigation of the Sanhedrin. But that is not the same as saying "the Joooos killed Christ!" In fact what it suggests is exactly the opposite, namely, that Jesus was so popular among the Jews that the Sanhedrin were afraid to have him stoned themselves. K.

Kirata -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 1:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren What Jesus divinity was is hard to ascertain... In that regard, I think perhaps the most telling statement in the entire NT is: "I and my Father are one." Jesus could have said, "I am God!" in which case he would have been shuffled off to an asylum. Or he could have said that he wasn't God, but that God "talks" to him, in which case, if he was still around, he could get a television show. But he didn't say either of those things. Instead, as was so often the case, he said something radically and profoundly different..... K.

BamaD -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 1:53:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple FR The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans. It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject, the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded ignorance of the worst kind. As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran. So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry. Not what I said. The previous poster was ranting about how a book challenging the very nature of Christ would only be opposed by those looking for something to be upset about. I said he has the right to write the book. But I put opposition into perspective. Even if your assessment were correct it would be nothing compared to Islamic reaction to anything that questions any portion of the Koran

chatterbox24 -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 2:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Pilate would have killed Jesus without a heartbeat if he really was a warriorking. He did kill him, because he handed him over, he had the ability to stand strong, but instead fell weak to the pressure of the powers, as we as humans do many times. I, myself, have made so many errors in life, I would not even want to try to count them. Ones I can never change, if I was to believe there was no hope due to my past, I would have no hope of a better future. That idea that Pilate did it out of weakness is not History, it is a deliberately slanted acccount in Matthew compounded with Catholic teaching. Pilate was not weak, not in the least bit, and the biblical account is frankly the equivalent of yellow Journalism, it was Matthew in part sucking up to the Romans and telling them "Hey, we know your boy didn't want to kill Christ, and ya know, it was those damn Jews who did it"...and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. When Matthew was written, in around 70CE, the Jews were in open revolt and the Romans were not exactly taking it lying down. Matthew is separating Christ's followers from the Jews and in the process saying "hey, don't kill us, those bastards killed our Christ, why would we be like them?". One historical note, Pilate was recalled by the Romans, not because he was weak, but because he was a bloodthirsty and cruel ruler, who loved to execute people, and he in effect constantly poured gasoline on the fire..does that sound like someone afraid of the Jewish authorities or the mob? I doubt it sincerely, sounds more like the bible did a little of what we call spin these days. We are speaking from two different places. The strength and power you speak of him having, is in no relationship to the strength and power I am referring too. Your statements about Pilate being in power, blood thirsty and cruel reflect and confirm he was a weak man. Christians do not acknowledge the characteristics such as this, as strength.

dcnovice -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 5:26:49 AM)
quote: Christ as a politically motivated warlord does not attack Christianity? I would distinguish between a scholar/writer offering his interpretation of events and a malicious effort to arouse hatred and contempt. From what I understand about Aslan (whose work I have not read), he seems to be engaged in the former.

Winterapple -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 6:16:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple FR The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans. It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject, the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded ignorance of the worst kind. As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran. So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry. Not what I said. The previous poster was ranting about how a book challenging the very nature of Christ would only be opposed by those looking for something to be upset about. I said he has the right to write the book. But I put opposition into perspective. Even if your assessment were correct it would be nothing compared to Islamic reaction to anything that questions any portion of the Koran As the previous poster in question I assure you I wasn't ranting about anything. I just made a comment, a perfectly calm one about the book which unlike you I've actually read. I also was perfectly civil to you in my first reply to you. Perhaps all women posters who say something you disagree with are ranters just as authors who write books that don't confirm your world view are attacking it.

Winterapple -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 6:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Christ as a politically motivated warlord does not attack Christianity? I would distinguish between a scholar/writer offering his interpretation of events and a malicious effort to arouse hatred and contempt. From what I understand about Aslan (whose work I have not read), he seems to be engaged in the former. I don't think it was a malicious book or one that's purpose was to belittle Christianity. It's a rather standard academic but accessible to the nonacademic reader book about the historical Jesus and his the time he lived in. If it was a screed against Christianity I wouldn't have had any interest in reading it. His conclusions about the historical Jesus aren't that different than others have proposed. I can't say I came away convinced of his conclusions but I would recommend the book to people who are interested in the world Jesus lived in.

BamaD -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 7:04:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple FR The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans. It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject, the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded ignorance of the worst kind. As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran. So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry. Not what I said. The previous poster was ranting about how a book challenging the very nature of Christ would only be opposed by those looking for something to be upset about. I said he has the right to write the book. But I put opposition into perspective. Even if your assessment were correct it would be nothing compared to Islamic reaction to anything that questions any portion of the Koran As the previous poster in question I assure you I wasn't ranting about anything. I just made a comment, a perfectly calm one about the book which unlike you I've actually read. I also was perfectly civil to you in my first reply to you. Perhaps all women posters who say something you disagree with are ranters just as authors who write books that don't confirm your world view are attacking it. I do not see anyway that a book attempting to alter the very basis of any religion could be considered anything but an attack on that religion. Had someone written a book depicting Mohammed as a huckster who used religion as an excuse not to work it would be roundly, and rightly condemned. Since it is only Christianity it is a brilliant insight and "only people who want something to be upset about" would object. And no gender played no part in my answer in my post. Touchy are we?

Winterapple -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 9:14:39 AM)
If its touchy to be dubious you would have said a male poster was ranting if he had said the same things I did I'm content to be touchy. I don't think I'm any touchier than you are deliberately obtuse, though with each post you make on this topic qualifying obtuse with deliberately might be generous on my part. I also wasn't the one who introduced incivility into this exchange. The book isn't attempting to alter the basis of the religion. Paranoid much? It's a secular academic book about a man who in addition to being a religious figure to some is a historical figure. Jesus and Mohammed are both historical figures. People are going to study their lives and times and write books about them. That some of these writers will seem them differently than those who worship them as divine figures doesn't mean they are automatically attacking them or the religions based on their teachings. And there's a bit of difference in Jesus as a political figure and a depiction of Mohammed as a huckster who used religion not to work. To fine a point for you? And there are people in the West and the Islamic world who seek to exploit the sincere religious beliefs of others for their own purposes. These are the people I characterize as wanting something to be upset about.

BamaD -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 9:37:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple If its touchy to be dubious you would have said a male poster was ranting if he had said the same things I did I'm content to be touchy. I don't think I'm any touchier than you are deliberately obtuse, though with each post you make on this topic qualifying obtuse with deliberately might be generous on my part. I also wasn't the one who introduced incivility into this exchange. The book isn't attempting to alter the basis of the religion. Paranoid much? It's a secular academic book about a man who in addition to being a religious figure to some is a historical figure. Jesus and Mohammed are both historical figures. People are going to study their lives and times and write books about them. That some of these writers will seem them differently than those who worship them as divine figures doesn't mean they are automatically attacking them or the religions based on their teachings. And there's a bit of difference in Jesus as a political figure and a depiction of Mohammed as a huckster who used religion not to work. To fine a point for you? And there are people in the West and the Islamic world who seek to exploit the sincere religious beliefs of others for their own purposes. These are the people I characterize as wanting something to be upset about. First I didn't even pay attention to gender. The huckster would completely redefine Mohammed as this book attempts to do to Christ. He was a political militant as opposed to the son of God? You don't see this as an attempt to completely discredit Christianity? That is why some time back I said there was no point in continuing a conversation with you as we have zero common ground. There was no intent of incivility.

Winterapple -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 11:29:32 AM)
You mean you look at my pic and see a boy bird? You have wounded my feminine vanity.[8D] Bama, I know there are offensive books written about Jesus and Christianity. Christians aren't always the only ones offended by them either. But this book doesn't come with Richard Dawkins attitude. I don't think his goal in writing the book is to discredit Christianity. I think he is an academic. A man who spends his life studying his field of interest, coming to his conclusions and writing about them with no agenda beyond adding his take and keeping his tenure. I didn't find the tone of the book offensive or even particularly provocative. I realize that many religious people would feel differently. But I also think there are religious people who can and will read the book and not be offended by it. His phd is in sociology with a focus on the history of religion. I thought he captured well the society that Jesus lived in. I've read all kinds of takes on the historical Jesus. Hippie Jesus, Jesus who went to India and studied Buddhism, married Jesus, philosopher Jesus, teacher preacher Jesus, charlatan conman Jesus, made up Jesus who never existed to begin with. This is just one mans take on the historical Jesus.

dcnovice -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 4:21:10 PM)
quote: He was a political militant as opposed to the son of God? You don't see this as an attempt to completely discredit Christianity? No. If what I've heard about the book is accurate, I see it as a scholar/writer offering his views on a historical subject. If those views happen to clash with someone's faith, that's not the author's fault. A faith so weak that it can't stand scrutiny is probably not worth defending. Are you saying that only those who view Jesus as the son of God should write about him? If so, it may be helpful to bear in mind that the question of Jesus' divinity was far from settled in the early church. If I'm remembering my high school theology classes right, Arians (who deemed Jesus subordinate to the Father) actually outnumbered "orthodox" Christians at one point. The issue wasn't settled until the Council of Nicaea in 325. Constantine called the council because he was tired of ecclesiastical squabbling.

dcnovice -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 4:22:50 PM)
quote: I've read all kinds of takes on the historical Jesus. Hippie Jesus, Jesus who went to India and studied Buddhism, married Jesus, philosopher Jesus, teacher preacher Jesus, charlatan conman Jesus, made up Jesus who never existed to begin with. This is just one mans take on the historical Jesus. I wish I could think that I'd arouse such fascination two thousand years from now. [:)]

dcnovice -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 4:32:04 PM)
quote: Had someone written a book depicting Mohammed as a huckster who used religion as an excuse not to work it would be roundly, and rightly condemned. There might indeed be some ugly expressions of rage. The tendency to produce that overreaction is one of the things that give me pause about Islam. I certainly don't see it as a model for how Christians should respond to critiques.

BamaD -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 8:16:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple You mean you look at my pic and see a boy bird? You have wounded my feminine vanity.[8D] Bama, I know there are offensive books written about Jesus and Christianity. Christians aren't always the only ones offended by them either. But this book doesn't come with Richard Dawkins attitude. I don't think his goal in writing the book is to discredit Christianity. I think he is an academic. A man who spends his life studying his field of interest, coming to his conclusions and writing about them with no agenda beyond adding his take and keeping his tenure. I didn't find the tone of the book offensive or even particularly provocative. I realize that many religious people would feel differently. But I also think there are religious people who can and will read the book and not be offended by it. His phd is in sociology with a focus on the history of religion. I thought he captured well the society that Jesus lived in. I've read all kinds of takes on the historical Jesus. Hippie Jesus, Jesus who went to India and studied Buddhism, married Jesus, philosopher Jesus, teacher preacher Jesus, charlatan conman Jesus, made up Jesus who never existed to begin with. This is just one mans take on the historical Jesus. When you brought up gender and yes that was obvious. I pay attention to the words. Given his perspective that Christ was a militant political leader lacking in divinity, he leaves no basis for Christianity to exist. When I was in high school four cheerleaders in a vw beetle were run over by a truck load of pigs. The truck drivers lack of malice didn't make the survivor feel any better. Malicious or not it still strikes at the heart of Christianity.

BamaD -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 8:17:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Had someone written a book depicting Mohammed as a huckster who used religion as an excuse not to work it would be roundly, and rightly condemned. There might indeed be some ugly expressions of rage. The tendency to produce that overreaction is one of the things that give me pause about Islam. I certainly don't see it as a model for how Christians should respond to critiques. Of course not

BamaD -> RE: Can a Muslim Scholar Write About Christianity? (8/2/2013 8:20:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: He was a political militant as opposed to the son of God? You don't see this as an attempt to completely discredit Christianity? No. If what I've heard about the book is accurate, I see it as a scholar/writer offering his views on a historical subject. If those views happen to clash with someone's faith, that's not the author's fault. A faith so weak that it can't stand scrutiny is probably not worth defending. Are you saying that only those who view Jesus as the son of God should write about him? If so, it may be helpful to bear in mind that the question of Jesus' divinity was far from settled in the early church. If I'm remembering my high school theology classes right, Arians (who deemed Jesus subordinate to the Father) actually outnumbered "orthodox" Christians at one point. The issue wasn't settled until the Council of Nicaea in 325. Constantine called the council because he was tired of ecclesiastical squabbling. Of course not anyone can write about anything they want to. I could write a book on worm holes, doesn't mean anyone should believe it. (I would worry if they did.)

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125